[G.R. No. 131516.

March 5, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
RULLEPA y GUINTO, accused-appellant.

Cyra May what else he did to her, and Cyra May indicated the room where
accused-appellant slept and pointed at his pillow.
vs. RONNIE

DECISION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

FACTS:
On complaint of Cyra May Francisco Buenafe, accused-appellant
Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto was charged with Rape before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of November, 1995, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, by means of force and intimidation, to wit:
by then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously removing her panty,
kissing her lips and vagina and thereafter rubbing his penis and inserting
the same to the inner portion of the vagina of the undersigned
complainant, 3 years of age, a minor, against her will and without her
consent.[1]
Arraigned on January 15, 1996, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.
[2]

From the testimonies of its witnesses, namely Cyra May,[3] her mother
Gloria Francisco Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and SPO4 Catherine
Borda, the prosecution established the following facts:
On November 20, 1995, as Gloria was about to set the table for
dinner at her house in Quezon City, Cyra May, then only three and a half
years old, told her, Mama, si kuya Ronnie lagay niya titi niya at sinaksak
sa puwit at sa bibig ko.
Kuya Ronnie is accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa, the Buenafes house
boy, who was sometimes left with Cyra May at home.
Gloria asked Cyra May how many times accused-appellant did those
things to her, to which she answered many times. Pursuing, Gloria asked

As on the night of November 20, 1995 accused-appellant was out with

Glorias husband Col. Buenafe,[4] she waited until their arrival at past 11:00
p.m. Gloria then sent accused-appellant out on an errand and informed her
husband about their daughters plaint. Buenafe thereupon talked to Cyra
May who repeated what she had earlier told her mother Gloria.
When accused-appellant returned, Buenafe and Gloria verified from
him whether what Cyra May had told them was true. Ronnie readily
admitted doing those things but only once, at 4:00 p.m. of November 17,
1995 or three days earlier. Unable to contain her anger, Gloria slapped
accused-appellant several times.
Since it was already midnight, the spouses waited until the following
morning to bring accused-appellant to Camp Karingal where he admitted
the imputations against him, on account of which he was detained. Glorias
sworn statement[5] was then taken.[6]
Recalling what accused-appellant did to her, Cyra May declared at the
witness stand: Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa
bunganga, thus causing her pain and drawing her to cry. She added that
accused-appellant did these to her twice in his bedroom.
Dr. Ma. Cristina V. Preyra, the Medico-Legal Officer and Chief of the
Biological Science Branch of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory
who examined Crya May, came up with her report dated November 21,
1995,[7] containing the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND EXTRA GENITAL:
Fairly developed, fairly nourished and coherent female
subject. Breasts are undeveloped. Abdomen is flat and soft.
GENITAL:

child

There is absence of pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated
with congested
and
abraded
labia
minora
presenting
in
between. On separating the same is disclosed an abraded posterior
fourchette and an elastic, fleshy type intact hymen. External vaginal orifice
does not admit the tip of the examining index finger.

q- And how about the present complaint filed against you, the
complaint filed by the mother of the victim?
a- I did not do it, sir.
q- What is the truth, what can you say about this present
complaint filed against you?

xxx
CONCLUSION:

a- As I said Mrs. Buenafe got mad at me because after I

explained to her that I was going with her Husband (sic) to
the children of the husband with a former marriage. [9]

Subject is in virgin state physically.

There are no external signs of recent application of any form of
trauma at the time of examination. (Emphasis supplied.)

Finding for the prosecution, Branch 96 of the Quezon City RTC

rendered judgment, the dispositive portion of which reads:

By Dr. Preyras explanation, the abrasions on the labia minora could

have been caused by friction with an object, perhaps an erect penis. She
doubted if riding on a bicycle had caused the injuries. [8]

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RONNIE

RULLEPA y GUINTO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape, and he is
accordingly sentenced to death.

The defenses sole witness was accused-appellant, who was 28 and

single at the time he took the witness stand on June 9, 1997. He denied
having anything to do with the abrasions found in Cyra Mays genitalia, and
claimed that prior to the alleged incident, he used to be ordered to buy
medicine for Cyra May who had difficulty urinating. He further alleged that
after he refused to answer Glorias queries if her husband Buenafe, whom
he usually accompanied whenever he went out of the house, was
womanizing, Gloria would always find fault in him. He suggested that
Gloria was behind the filing of the complaint. Thus:

The accused is ordered to pay CYRA MAE BUENAFE the amount

of P40,000.00 as civil indemnity.

q- According to them you caused the abrasions found in her

genital?
a- That is not true, sir.
q- If that is not true, what is the truth?
a- As I have mentioned earlier that before I started working with
the family I was sent to Crame to buy medicine for the
daughter because she had difficulty in urinating.
q- Did you know why the child has difficulty in urinating?
a- No, I do not know, sir.

Costs to be paid by the accused.[10] (Italics in the original.)

Hence, this automatic review,
following errors to the trial court:

accused-appellant

assigning

the

I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONSIDERING AS ADMISSIBLE IN
EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ADMISSION.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED ON (sic) RULING THAT THE ACCUSEDAPPELLANTS SILENCE DURING TRIAL AMOUNTED TO AN IMPLIED
ADMISSION OF GUILT.
III
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

IV

q- What did he do to you?

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY

OF DEATH UPON THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[11] (Emphasis supplied.)

a- Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa bunganga

q- How many times did he do that to you?

Accused-appellant assails the crediting by the trial court, as the

following portion of its decision shows, of his admission to Gloria of having
sexually assaulted Cyra May:
In addition, the mother asserted that Rullepa had admitted Cyra Ma[y]s
complaint during the confrontation in the house. Indeed, according to the
mother, the admission was even expressly qualified by Rullepas insistence
that he had committed the sexual assault only once, specifying the time
thereof as 4:00 pm of November 17, 1995. That qualification proved that
the admission was voluntary and true. An uncoerced and truthful
admission like this should be absolutely admissible and competent.
xxx
Remarkably, the admission was not denied by the accused during trial
despite his freedom to deny it if untrue. Hence, the admission became
conclusive upon him.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)

a- Twice, sir.
xxx
q- Do you remember when he did these things to you?
a- Opo.
q- When was that?
a- When my mother was asleep, he put he removed my panty
and inserted his penis inside my vagina, my anus and my
mouth, sir.
xxx

To accused-appellant, the statements attributed to him are

inadmissible since they were made out of fear, having been elicited only
after Cyra Mays parents bullied and questioned him. He thus submits that
it was error for the trial court to take his failure to deny the statements
during the trial as an admission of guilt.

q- After your Kuya Ronnie did those things to you what did you
feel?

Accused-appellants submission does not persuade. The trial court

considered his admission merely as an additional ground to convince
itself of his culpability. Even if such admission, as well as the implication of
his failure to deny the same, were disregarded, the evidence suffices to
establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

q- Did you cry because of hurt?

The plain, matter-of-fact manner by which Cyra May described her

abuse in the hands of her Kuya Ronnie is an eloquent testament to the
truth of her accusations. Thus she testified on direct examination:

a- Pepe ko po. When I went to the bathroom to urinate, I felt

pain in my organ, sir.[13]

q- Do you recall if Ronnie Rullepa did anything to you?

a- Yes, sir.

a- Sabi nya ganito (Witness putting her finger in her lips)

Nasaktan po ako at umiyak po ako.

a- Yes.
q- What part of your body hurt?

Cyra May reiterated her testimony during

providing more revolting details of her ordeal:

cross-examination,

q- So, you said that Kuya Ronnie did something to you what did
he do to you on November 17, 1995?

a- Sinaksak nga yong titi nya. He inserted his penis to my organ

and to my mouth, sir.
xxx
q- When you said that your kuya Ronnie inserted his penis into
your organ, into your mouth, and into your anus, would you
describe what his penis?

a- He inserted his penis to my organ, sir.

q- Why did kuya Ronnie, was kuya Ronnie already naked or he
was already wearing any clothing?
a- Still had his clothing on, sir.
q- So, where did his penis, saan lumabas ang penis ni Kuya
Ronnie?

a- It is a round object, sir.

a- Dito po, (Witness referring or pointing to her groin area)
C o u r t:
xxx
Is this titi of your kuya Ronnie a part of his body?
a- Opo.
q- Was that in the head of kuya Ronnie?

q- So, thats the and at the time, you did not cry and you did not
shout for help?
a- Sabi nya po, not to make any noise because my mother might
be roused from sleep.

a- No, sir.
q- How long was kuya Ronnie did that to you?
q- Which part of his body that titi located?
a- Matagal po.
(Witness pointing to her groin area)
C o u r t:
Continue
xxx
q- Why were you in that room?
a- Gusto nya po matulog ako sa kuwarto niya.
q- When you were in that room, what did Kuya Ronnie do to you?
a- Hinubo po niya ang panty ko.
q- And after he remove your panty, what did Kuya Ronnie do,
what did he do to you?

q- After kuya Ronnie scrub his penis to your vagina, what other
things did he do?
a- After that he inserted his penis to my mouth, and to my anus,
sir.
q- You did not complain and you did not shout?
a- I cried, sir.[14]
Accused-appellant draws attention to the statement of Cyra May that
he was not in the house on November 17 (1995), as reflected in the
following transcript of her testimony:
q- Is it not a fact that you said a while ago that when your father
leaves the house, he [was] usually accompanied by your
kuya Ronnie?

a- Opo.
q- Why is it that Kuya Ronnie was in the house when you father
left the house at that time, on November 17?
a- He was with Kuya Ronnie, sir.
q- So, it is not correct that kuya Ronnie did something to you
because your kuya Ronnie [was] always with your Papa?
a- Yes, sir.[15]
The above-quoted testimony of Cyra May does not indicate the time
when her father Col. Buenafe left their house on November 17, 1995 with
accused-appellant and, thus, does not preclude accused-appellants
commission of rape on the same date. In any event, a young child is
vulnerable to suggestion, hence, her affirmative response to the defense
counsels above-quoted leading questions.
As for the variance in the claim regarding when Gloria was informed
of the rape, Gloria having testified that she learned of it on November 20,
1995[16] while Cyra May said that immediately after the incident, she
awakened her mother who was in the adjacent room and reported it:
[17]
This is a minor matter that does not detract from Cyra Mays
categorical, material testimony that accused-appellant inserted his penis
into her vagina.
Accused-appellant goes on to contend that Cyra May was coached,
citing the following portion of her testimony:
q- Yong sinabi mong sinira nya ang buhay mo, where did you get
that phrase?
a- It was the word of my Mama, sir.[18]
On the contrary, the foregoing testimony indicates that Cyra May was
really narrating the truth, that of hearing her mother utter sinira niya ang
buhay mo.
Accused-appellants suggestion that Cyra May merely imagined the
things of which he is accused, perhaps getting the idea from television
programs, is preposterous. It is true that the ordinary child is a great
weaver of romances, and her imagination may induce (her) to relate

something she has heard or read in a story as personal experience. [19] But
Cyra Mays account is hardly the stuff of romance or fairy tales. Neither is it
normal TV fare, if at all.
This Court cannot believe that a victim of Cyra Mays age could
concoct a tale of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts,
and undergo the expense, trouble, inconvenience, not to mention the
trauma of public trial.[20]
Besides, her testimony is corroborated by the findings of Dr. Preyra
that there were abrasions in her labia minora, which she opined, could
have been caused by friction with an erect penis.
This Court thus accords great weight to the following assessment of
the trial court regarding the competency and credibility of Cyra May as a
witness:
Her very tender age notwithstanding, Cyra Ma(y) nonetheless appeared to
possess the necessary intelligence and perceptiveness sufficient to invest
her with the competence to testify about her experience. She might have
been an impressionable child as all others of her age are but her narration
of Kuya Ronnies placing his titi in her pepe was certainly one which could
not be considered as a common childs tale. Her responses during the
examination of counsel and of the Court established her consciousness of
the distinction between good and bad, which rendered inconceivable for
her to describe a bad act of the accused unless it really happened to
her. Needless to state, she described the act of the accused as bad. Her
demeanor as a witness manifested during trial by her unhesitant,
spontaneous, and plain responses to questions further enhanced her claim
to credit and trustworthiness.[21] (Italics in the original.)
In a futile attempt at exculpation, accused-appellant claims that even
before the alleged incident Cyra May was already suffering from pain in
urinating. He surmises that she could have scratched herself which caused
the abrasions. Dr. Preyra, however, was quick to rule out this
possibility. She stated categorically that that part of the female organ is
very sensitive and rubbing or scratching it is painful. [22] The abrasions
could not, therefore, have been self-inflicted.
That the Medical-Legal Officer found no external signs of recent
application of any form of trauma at the time of the examination does not
preclude accused-appellants conviction since the infliction of force is
immaterial in statutory rape.[23]

More. That Cyra May suffered pain in her vagina but not in her anus
despite her testimony that accused-appellant inserted his penis in both
orifices does not diminish her credibility. It is possible that accusedappellants penis failed to penetrate her anus as deeply as it did her
vagina, the former being more resistant to extreme forces than the latter.
Accused-appellants imputation of ill motive on the part of Gloria is
puerile. No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the
humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape if she
were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person
responsible for the childs defilement. [24] Courts are seldom, if at all,
convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to
physical hardship and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to
assuage her own hurt feelings.[25]
Alternatively, accused-appellant prays that he be held liable for acts of
lasciviousness instead of rape, apparently on the basis of the following
testimony of Cyra May, quoted verbatim, that he merely scrubbed his
penis against her vagina:
q- Is it not a fact that kuya Ronnie just made some scrubbed his
penis into your vagina?

The victims age is relevant in rape cases since it may constitute

an element of the offense. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659,[29]provides:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. Rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
x x x.
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age x x x.
x x x.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
x x x.
Furthermore, the victims age may constitute a qualifying circumstance,
warranting the imposition of the death sentence. The same Article states:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following attendant circumstances:

a- Yes, sir.
q- And when he did not actually penetrated your vagina?
a- Yes, sir.[26]
Dr. Preya, however, found abrasions in the labia minora, which is directly
beneath the labia majora,[27] proving that there was indeed penetration of
the vagina, not just a mere rubbing or scrubbing of the penis against its
surface.

1. when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity with the third civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the parent of the victim.
x x x.
4. when the victim is x x x a child below seven (7) years old.
x x x.

In fine, the crime committed by accused-appellant is not merely acts

of lasciviousness but statutory rape.
The two elements of statutory rape are (1) that the accused had
carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman is below twelve
years of age.[28] As shown in the previous discussion, the first
element, carnal knowledge, had been established beyond reasonable
doubt. The same is true with respect to the second element.

Because of the seemingly conflicting decisions regarding the

sufficiency of evidence of the victims age in rape cases, this Court, in the
recently decided case of People v. Pruna,[30] established a set of guidelines
in appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying
circumstance, to wit:
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original
or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.

2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents

such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of
birth of the victim would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victims mother or a member of thefamily either by affinity
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the
testimony of the victims mother or relatives concerning the victims age,
the complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and
clearly admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the
offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial
evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of
the victim.
Applying the foregoing guidelines, this Court in the Pruna case held
that the therein accused-appellant could only be sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua since:
x x x no birth certificate or any similar authentic document, such as a
baptismal certificate of LIZETTE, was presented to prove her age. x x x.
x x x.

However, the Medico-Legal Report relied upon by the trial court does not in
any way prove the age of LIZETTE, for there is nothing therein which even
mentions her age. Only testimonial evidence was presented to establish
LIZETTEs age. Her mother, Jacqueline, testified (that the victim was three
years old at the time of the commission of the crime).
xxx
Likewise, LIZETTE testified on 20 November 1996, or almost two years
after the incident, that she was 5 years old. However, when the defense
counsel asked her how old she was on 3 January 1995, or at the time of
the rape, she replied that she was 5 years old. Upon further question as to
the date she was born, she could not answer.
For PRUNA to be convicted of rape in its qualified form and meted the
supreme penalty of death, it must be established with certainty that
LIZETTE was below 7 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime. It must be stressed that the severity of the death penalty,
especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the
decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most
exacting rules of procedure and evidence.
In view of the uncertainty of LIZETTEs exact age, corroborative evidence
such as her birth certificate, baptismal certificate or any other authentic
document should be introduced in evidence in order that the qualifying
circumstance of below seven (7) years old is appreciated against the
appellant. The lack of objection on the part of the defense as to her age
did not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden. That the
defense invoked LIZETTEs tender age for purposes of questioning her
competency to testify is not necessarily an admission that she was below 7
years of age when PRUNA raped her on 3 January 1995. Such being the
case, PRUNA cannot be convicted of qualified rape, and hence the death
penalty cannot be imposed on him.
However, conformably with no. 3 (b) of the foregoing guidelines, the
testimony of LIZETTEs mother that she was 3 years old at the time of the
commission of the crime is sufficient for purposes of holding PRUNA liable
for statutory rape, or rape of a girl below 12 years of age. Under the
second paragraph of Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in relation
to no. 3 of the first paragraph thereof, having carnal knowledge of a
woman under 12 years of age is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus,
the penalty to be imposed on PRUNA should be reclusion perpetua, and
not death penalty. (Italics in the original.)

Several cases[31] suggest that courts may take judicial notice of the
appearance of the victim in determining her age. For example, the Court,
in People v. Tipay,[32] qualified the ruling in People v. Javier,[33] which
required the presentation of the birth certificate to prove the rape victims
age, with the following pronouncement:
This does not mean, however, that the presentation of the certificate of
birth is at all times necessary to prove minority. The minority of a victim of
tender age who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the
court can take judicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages
of fifteen to seventeen where minority may seem to be dubitable due to
ones physical appearance.In this situation, the prosecution has the burden
of proving with certainty the fact that the victim was under 18 years of age
when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the
death penalty under the above-cited provision. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the other hand, a handful of cases[34] holds that courts, without
the requisite hearing prescribed by Section 3, Rule 129 of the Rules of
Court,[35] cannot take judicial notice of the victims age.
Judicial notice signifies that there are certain facta probanda, or
propositions in a partys case, as to which he will not be required to offer
evidence; these will be taken for true by the tribunal without the need of
evidence.[36] Judicial notice, however, is a phrase sometimes used in a
loose way to cover some other judicial action. Certain rules of Evidence,
usually known under other names, are frequently referred to in terms of
judicial notice.[37]
The process by which the trier of facts judges a persons age from his
or her appearance cannot be categorized as judicial notice. Judicial notice
is based upon convenience and expediency for it would certainly be
superfluous, inconvenient, and expensive both to parties and the court to
require proof, in the ordinary way, of facts which are already known to
courts.[38] As Tundag puts it, it is the cognizance of certain facts which
judges may properly take and act on without proof because they already
know them. Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, where the provisions
governing judicial notice are found, is entitled What Need Not Be Proved.
When the trier of facts observes the appearance of a person to ascertain
his or her age, he is not taking judicial notice of such fact; rather, he is
conducting an examination of the evidence, the evidence being the
appearance of the person.Such a process militates against the very
concept of judicial notice, the object of which is to do away with the
presentation of evidence.

This is not to say that the process is not sanctioned by the Rules of
Court; on the contrary, it does. A persons appearance, where relevant, is
admissible as object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of
the court. Section 1, Rule 130 provides:
SECTION 1. Object as evidence. Objects as evidence are those addressed
to the senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue,
it may be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.
To be sure, one author writes, this practice of inspection by the court
of objects, things or persons relevant to the fact in dispute, has its roots
in ancient judicial procedure.[39]The author proceeds to quote from another
authority:
Nothing is older or commoner in the administration of law in all countries
than the submission to the senses of the tribunal itself, whether judge or
jury, of objects which furnish evidence. The view of the land by the jury, in
real actions, of a wound by the judge where mayhem was alleged, and of
the person of one alleged to be an infant, in order to fix his age , the
inspection and comparison of seals, the examination of writings, to
determine whether they are ()blemished,() the implements with which a
crime was committed or of a person alleged, in a bastardy proceeding, to
be the child of another, are few illustrations of what may be found
abundantly in our own legal records and textbooks for seven centuries
past.[40] (Emphasis supplied.)
A persons appearance, as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or
of being under the age of consent to intercourse ), is usually regarded
as relevant; and, if so, the tribunal may properly observe the person
brought before it.[41] Experience teaches that corporal appearances are
approximately an index of the age of their bearer, particularly for the
marked extremes of old age and youth. In every case such evidence
should be accepted and weighed for what it may be in each case worth. In
particular, the outward physical appearance of an alleged minor may be
considered in judging his age; a contrary rule would for such an inference
be pedantically over-cautious.[42] Consequently, the jury or the court trying
an issue of fact may be allowed to judge the age of persons in court by
observation of such persons.[43] The formal offer of the person as evidence
is not necessary.The examination and cross-examination of a party before
the jury are equivalent to exhibiting him before the jury and an offer of
such person as an exhibit is properly refused. [44]

This Court itself has sanctioned the determination of an aliens age

from his appearance. In Braca v. Collector of Customs,[45] this Court ruled
that:
The customs authorities may also determine from the personal appearance
of the immigrant what his age is. The person of a Chinese alien seeking
admission into the Philippine Islands is evidence in an investigation by the
board of special inquiry to determine his right to enter; and such body
may take into consideration his appearance to determine or assist in
determining his age and a finding that the applicant is not a minor based
upon such appearance is not without evidence to support it.
This Court has also implicitly recognized the same process in a
criminal case. Thus, in United States v. Agadas,[46] this Court held:
Rosario Sabacahan testified that he was 17 years of age; that he had
never purchased a cedula; and that he was going to purchase a cedula the
following january. Thereupon the court asked this defendant these
questions: You are a pretty big boy for seventeen. Answer: I cannot tell
exactly because I do not remember when I was born, but 17 years is my
guess. Court: If you are going to take advantage of that excuse, you had
better get some positive evidence to that effect. Answer: I do not
remember, as I already stated on what date and in what year I was
born. The court, in determining the question of the age of the defendant,
Rosario Sabacahan, said:
The defendant, Rosario Sabacahan, testified that he thought that he was
about 17 years of age, but judging by his appearance he is a youth 18
or 19 years old. He has shown that he has no positive information on the
subject and no effort was made by the defense to prove the fact that he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of article 9, paragraph 2, of the
Penal code, which fact it is held to be incumbent upon the defense to
establish by satisfactory evidence in order to enable the court to give an
accused person the benefit of the mitigating circumstance.
In United States vs. Estavillo and Perez (10 Off. Gaz., 1984) Estavillo
testified, when the case was tried in the court below, that he then was only
16 years of age. There was no other testimony in the record with reference
to his age. But the trial judge said: The accused Estavillo, notwithstanding
his testimony giving his age as 16 years, is, as a matter of fact, not less
than 20. This court, in passing upon the age of Estavillo, held:
We presume that the trial court reached this conclusion with reference to
the age of Estavillo from the latters personal appearance. There is no proof

in the record, as we have said, which even tends to establish the assertion
that this appellant understated his age. * * * It is true that the trial court
had an opportunity to note the personal appearance of Estavillo for the
purpose of determining his age, and by so doing reached the conclusion
that he was at least 20, just two years over 18. This appellant testified
that he was only 16, and this testimony stands uncontradicted. Taking into
consideration the marked difference in the penalties to be imposed upon
that age, we must, therefore, conclude (resolving all doubts in favor of the
appellants) that the appellants ages were 16 and 14 respectively.
While it is true that in the instant case Rosario testified that he was 17
years of age, yet the trial court reached the conclusion, judging from the
personal appearance of Rosario, that he is a youth 18 or 19 years
old. Applying the rule enunciated in the case just cited, we must conclude
that there exists a reasonable doubt, at least, with reference to the
question whether Rosario was, in fact 18 years of age at the time the
robbery was committed. This doubt must be resolved in favor of the
defendant, and he is, therefore, sentenced to six months of arresto
mayor in lieu of six years ten months and one day of presidio mayor. x x
x.
There can be no question, therefore, as to the admissibility of a
persons appearance in determining his or her age. As to the weight to
accord such appearance, especially in rape cases, Pruna laid down
guideline no. 3, which is again reproduced hereunder:
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have
been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and
credible, of the victims mother or a member of the family either by affinity
or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree
such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to
be proved is that she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought
to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old.

Under the above guideline, the testimony of a relative with respect to

the age of the victim is sufficient to constitute proof beyond reasonable
doubt in cases (a), (b) and (c) above. In such cases, the disparity between
the allegation and the proof of age is so great that the court can easily
determine from the appearance of the victim the veracity of the
testimony. The appearance corroborates the relatives testimony.
As the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the
persons appearance, as object evidence of her age, loses probative
value. Doubt
as
to
her
true
age
becomes
greater
and,
following Agadas, supra, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the
accused.
This is because in the era of modernism and rapid growth, the victims
mere physical appearance is not enough to gauge her exact age. For the
extreme penalty of death to be upheld, nothing but proof beyond
reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be
substantiated. Verily, the minority of the victim should be not only alleged
but likewise proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime
itself. Be it remembered that the proof of the victims age in the present
case spells the difference between life and death. [47]
In the present case, the prosecution did not offer the victims
certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents in evidence. The
victim and her mother, however, testified that she was only three years old
at the time of the rape. Cyra Mays testimony goes:
q- Your name is Cyra Mae is that correct?
a- Yes, sir.
q- And you are 3 years old?
a- Yes, sir.[48]
That of her mother goes:
Q How old was your daughter when there things happened?

A 3 and years old.

Q When was she born?
A In Manila, May 10, 1992.[49]
Because of the vast disparity between the alleged age (three years
old) and the age sought to be proved (below twelve years), the trial court
would have had no difficulty ascertaining the victims age from her
appearance. No reasonable doubt, therefore, exists that the second
element of statutory rape, i.e., that the victim was below twelve years of
age at the time of the commission of the offense, is present.
Whether the victim was below seven years old, however, is another
matter. Here, reasonable doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old
can easily be mistaken for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The
appearance of the victim, as object evidence, cannot be accorded much
weight and, following Pruna, the testimony of the mother is, by itself,
insufficient.
As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was
below seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense,
accused-appellant cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only
the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed upon him.
In line with settled jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded by the
trial court is increased to P50,000.00. In addition, Cyra May is entitled to
an award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[50]
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch
96,
is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant
Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto is found GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined and
punished by Article 335 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay
private complainant, Cyra May Buenafe y Francisco, the amount
of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages.
SO ORDERED.